State v. Huntington

• Decision Date: 01 July 1958
• Citation: 143 A.2d 444,145 Conn. 394
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Reginald HUNTINGTON. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 444

143 A.2d 444

145 Conn. 394

STATE of Connecticut v. Reginald HUNTINGTON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 1, 1958.

Richard F. Corkey, New London, with whom was Arthur Barrows, New London, for appellant (defendant).

Edward C. Hamill, Pros. Atty., Norwich, with whom was Orrin Carashick, Norwich, for appellee (state).

Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ.

DALY, Chief Justice.

The defendant was tried upon an information charging him with the crime of having two or more signs on premises occupied by him in the town of East Lyme on May 21, 1956, in violation of the zoning regulations of the town as amended. He was found guilty and appealed to this court.

The court found the following facts: In August, 1951, the defendant, a real estate agent, commenced the construction of a dwelling house in a residence zone. Since April, 1952, when the dwelling was completed, he has lived in the house and maintained a real estate office on the premises. In May, 1952, he erected two signs on the property, each of which was in excess of two square feet in size and contained words in addition to his name and occupation. On November 5, 1945, proposed zoning regulations had been adopted by the zoning commission. On November 6, 1945, the regulations were published with the provision that they were to become effective immediately. Under the regulations all of the town, except four specially chartered areas not involved in this action, was divided into three districts. ¹ The regulations permitted, within a residence district, 'the office of a physician, dentist, or other member of a recognized profession, when located in the dwelling used by such person as a private residence,' providing there was no display visible from the outside except for an announcement card or sign of not more than two square feet. The regulations constituted a comprehensive plan of zoning for the town. Commencing in December, 1945, they were amended from time to time.

On May 4, 1954, revised zoning regulations were validly adopted. They permitted, in a residence district, '[s]igns not over two square feet in area bearing the name and occupation of the occupant of the premises.' East Lyme Zoning Regs., § 4.2.10 (1954). By these regulations the entire town was divided into residence districts R-1, R-2 and R-3; rural districts RU-1 and RU-2; summer colony business, or SC-B, districts; commercial districts CA-1 and CB-1; and light industrial, or LI-1, districts. Id., § 1.1. The boundaries of these districts were established 'as shown on the Building Zone Map of the Town of East Lyme, dated April 5, 1954, and amendments thereto, which map and amendments are hereby declared to be a part of these regulations.' Id., § 1.2. In residence districts R-1, R-2 and R-3 customary home occupations, including 'the office of a * * * real estate or insurance broker,' and signs 'not over two square feet in area bearing the name and occupation of the occupant' were permitted. Id., §§ 4.1.2, 4.2.2, 4.2.10. By an amendment adopted in May, 1956, '[o]ne sign not over two square feet in area bearing the name and occupation of the occupant of the premises' was permitted in residence districts. There was no substantial change in the size, number and lettering of the signs on the defendant's premises between 1952 and May 21, 1956.

The court concluded that the zoning regulations adopted in 1945 were in accordance with law and were valid regulations and that the two signs erected by the defendant on his premises in 1952 were in violation of those regulations and were also in violation 'of the zoning regulations as amended on May 4, 1954, and May 7, 1956.'

The defendant maintains that the zoning regulations purportedly adopted in 1945 made no division into districts and did not constitute a comprehensive plan as required by § 424 of the 1930 Revision of the General Statutes, ² then in effect (cf. Nov. 1955 Sup., § N10), and consequently were not valid regulations. By the provisions of § 424, the zoning authority of the town was permitted to 'divide the municipality into districts of such number, shape and area as may be best suited to carry out the purposes' of zoning. The ultimate object of zoning regulations is to confine certain classes of buildings and uses to designated localities or districts. Town of Darien v. Webb, 115 Conn. 581, 585, 162 A. 690. The zoning commission was subject to the limitations prescribed by law. The power to zone was not absolute but was conditioned upon an adherence to the statutory purposes to be served. The statute went beyond the provision for the division of the municipality or a part of it into districts. It required that 'regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan.' The goal of this requirements is to avoid an arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory exercise of the zoning power.

'A comprehensive plan has been defined as a general plan to control and direct the use and development of property in a municipality or a large part thereof by dividing it into districts according to the present and potential use of the properties.' Miller v. Town Planning Commission, 142 Conn. 265, 269, 113 A.2d 504, 505. The districts must be described with reasonable certainty and must have definite boundaries so that the regulations may be practically applied. The district lines and boundaries must be fixed by the regulations and not by administrative officials or courts. In other words, the fixing of boundary lines between districts is a legislative function. 8 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed. Rev.) §§ 25.89, 25.90. In the present case, the regulations...